Obviously people have the right to speak freely, and saying someone's speech hurts you is no grounds to take that away.

But just as a hypothetical, what if SJWs actually started breaking out in stigmata when offended?

Assuming this did happen, how would the NAP apply?

The act of shooting a bullet at someone is only against the NAP because that bullet will piece their skin and cause them physical damage.

Just as a hypothetical, what if words could do that to SJWs?

I think a compromise would have to occur. There would be some places designed for free speakers to seek refuge from causing people to break out in stigmata, where free speech would be the norm, and if people with violent blood eruptions as a reaction to offence wanted to come in, they would just have to have lots of band-aids.

Note that even in these reverse-safe-spaces, people would be causing harm if one of these emotionophysically sensitive people did come in, but I think it's a small sacrifice for them to make if they're protected everywhere else.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a bad idea to compromise, and let people live their way, even if it violates the NAP.

All it would take for your way of life to violate the NAP is for someone to develop this skin condition.

I also think the standard response of "lol, words hurt?" is a reaction to the flat fact that most of them are faking.

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.-SnarkySack

Obviously people have the right to speak freely, and saying someone's speech hurts you is no grounds to take that away.

But just as a hypothetical, what if SJWs actually started breaking out in stigmata when offended?

Assuming this did happen, how would the NAP apply?

The act of shooting a bullet at someone is only against the NAP because that bullet will piece their skin and cause them physical damage.

Just as a hypothetical, what if words could do that to SJWs?

I think a compromise would have to occur. There would be some places designed for free speakers to seek refuge from causing people to break out in stigmata, where free speech would be the norm, and if people with violent blood eruptions as a reaction to offence wanted to come in, they would just have to have lots of band-aids.

Note that even in these reverse-safe-spaces, people would be causing harm if one of these emotionophysically sensitive people did come in, but I think it's a small sacrifice for them to make if they're protected everywhere else.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a bad idea to compromise, and let people live their way, even if it violates the NAP.

All it would take for your way of life to violate the NAP is for someone to develop this skin condition.

I also think the standard response of "lol, words hurt?" is a reaction to the flat fact that most of them are faking.

It would clearly not violate NAP. Harming yourself is harming yourself. So if you take Jeff's advice and off yourself, it's on you, not him. His actions are on him. Your actions are on you.

If Jeff threatens to kill you himself, then he's violating NAP.

Relevance? Zero. There are no anarchists who post regularly on the board

Obviously people have the right to speak freely, and saying someone's speech hurts you is no grounds to take that away.

But just as a hypothetical, what if SJWs actually started breaking out in stigmata when offended?

Assuming this did happen, how would the NAP apply?

The act of shooting a bullet at someone is only against the NAP because that bullet will piece their skin and cause them physical damage.

Just as a hypothetical, what if words could do that to SJWs?

Does that stigmata thing happen to Vulcans when they are verbally insulted?

Anyway, as usual, you fail to realize that aggression includes more than physical aggression against persons, but includes all types of theft of property and also verbal threats.

Our laws reflect this.

Let those who feel that an insult rises to the level of verbal assault take their complaint to court. "He called me a limp weenie your Honor, make him stop!"

Otherwise, teach kids this simple idea "Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you".

When they get older, you can teach them about verbal assault, and of course if someone is surrounded by a crowd of people all hurling verbal insults at them, it can rise to the level of verbal assault. The issues aren't as simple as you would like them to be. That's why we have courts...

But of course if courts were the way you say they should be, rich people would be protected from being called limp weenies, and poor people would be fair game for verbal assault...

Millennials seem to have all sorts of problems with thinking rationally. My theory is, they were never taught to think-

It would clearly not violate NAP. Harming yourself is harming yourself.

This is why I specify that they have a skin condition that causes them to break out in stigmata when harmed emotionally.

I think what would actually happen would be a compromise, especially since I think people only stand so firm on the speech-is-not-aggression thing because the SJWs are faking it to exert power. If they couldn't fake it, it'd be a totally different issue.

The best solution I know of is to take note of the NAP and follow it; Don't personally initiate aggression, and then forget about it. It's such a simple straightforward principle- initiating aggression is wrong- that it doesn't really require any deep analysis or tortured soul searching to understand it.

Care to take that back, Kaz?

The NAP is simple and easy, it turns out.

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.-SnarkySack

This is why I specify that they have a skin condition that causes them to break out in stigmata when harmed emotionally.

I think what would actually happen would be a compromise, especially since I think people only stand so firm on the speech-is-not-aggression thing because the SJWs are faking it to exert power. If they couldn't fake it, it'd be a totally different issue.

This is why I specify that they have a skin condition that causes them to break out in stigmata when harmed emotionally.

I think what would actually happen would be a compromise, especially since I think people only stand so firm on the speech-is-not-aggression thing because the SJWs are faking it to exert power. If they couldn't fake it, it'd be a totally different issue.

Care to take that back, Kaz?

The NAP is simple and easy, it turns out.

As evidence of belief in NAP on the board, you go to the board drunk? Seriously? For a bottle of whiskey, he'll believe you're an alien

As evidence of belief in NAP on the board, you go to the board drunk? Seriously? For a bottle of whiskey, he'll believe you're an alien

Well, I at least keep telling it that the NAP says it's wrong to initiate aggression.

It is other (presumably sober?) people who say the NAP is too complicated to understand. It's obvious that the people saying the NAP prohibits self defense or retribution that have it all mixed up... Maybe they aren't sober?

Also, don't move the bar. You said no one who believes in the NAP posts here. You can't just disqualify it when I find someone who clearly does.

Actually I said no one who understands NAP believes in it here. No bar was moved. Your argument was a fail.

My argument was specifically that they say they do. But don't. You supported my point, brainiac. You do have a great memory. But you are just a God awful reader. You went to government schools, didn't you?